Asylum Seekers Turning Point?
Discussion
From the Telegraph:
Seems to be a common sense approach at last from Blunkett.
By removing the immediate attraction of benefit on arrival, we should see a reduction in the number of 'false' refugee/asylum seekers and a more speedy supply of aid and assistance to those who genuinely need it.
Blunkett's 'safe havens' refugee plan is censured
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 28/03/2003)
British plans for asylum seekers to be held in camps outside the EU while their applications are considered were condemned by human rights campaigners yesterday.
A plan for regional protection zones will be presented by David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, at an informal meeting of EU ministers in Greece today.
But Amnesty International called the scheme "legally flawed" and morally wrong at a time when war could increase the flow of refugees to Europe.
Britain took almost a third of asylum seekers arriving in the EU last year and ministers want EU agreement to reduce the numbers.
Those who make it to Britain would be sent to a "transit processing centre" outside the EU to have their claims decided. The centres could be in Russia, the Ukraine or another eastern European country. Albania has also been considered.
In the longer term, the Government forsees the establishment of UN safe havens that would offer protection to refugees in regions close to the main areas of global conflict.
Mr Blunkett said: "We need a radically new approach to reduce asylum seekers. They would process claims without people travelling to countries in which they want to seek asylum. They would be safe and decently treated while their claims were looked at." The European Commission, with the UN high commissioner for refugees, is drawing up proposals for the next EU summit in June.
Those given refugee status would be resettled in participating member states on a burden-sharing basis while others would be returned to their country of origin.
The Government maintains that the scheme does not conflict with Britain's obligations under the 1951 convention on refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights, since there is no obligation to handle asylum claims in the country of application.
However, there is a fundamental duty of "non-refoulement" or no return, and campaigners argue that sending people out of Britain to camps amounts to the same thing.
Dick Oosting, director of Amnesty International's EU office, said: "It is extraordinary that a proposal to reinforce 'Fortress Europe' is being debated when war in Iraq may result in many people fleeing the country.
"It is doubly incongruous that the proposals were initiated by the EU member state that is part of the military operations in Iraq."
Amnesty said the plans contravened the 1951 convention by denying access to territory and shifting asylum-seekers to zones where responsibility, enforceability and accountability for protection would be weak and unclear. However, the UN High Commission for Refugees said that there was merit in some of the ideas and that it would work with the EU to develop them.
Seems to be a common sense approach at last from Blunkett.
By removing the immediate attraction of benefit on arrival, we should see a reduction in the number of 'false' refugee/asylum seekers and a more speedy supply of aid and assistance to those who genuinely need it.
rds as they get out the back of the lorry at Dover. Watch the number of illegal entries drop like a stone. 
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff